Bill would require presidential candidates to prove U.S. birth

A Skull Valley Republican has filed a bill that would require all presidential candidates to submit proof that they were born in the United States if they want to be included on the ballot in Arizona.

The measure appears to be a direct response to questions surrounding President Barack Obama’s eligibility. Some people continue to argue that Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore is not constitutionally eligible to be president. The candidate also would have to sign an affidavit stating that they are a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that a person can run for president only if he or she is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and has been a resident for at least 14 years.

The measure, H2441, was introduced by Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley.

Burges did not return multiple phone calls.

“Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc,” said Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from Snowflake who co-sponsored the measure along with more than three-dozen lawmakers.

Allen said many people are spending a lot of time on the issue.

“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she said.

But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Phoenix, said the whole idea is “ridiculous and offensive.”

“He clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year. The question has been asked and answered,” she said.

Also under H2442, the secretary of state would have to independently verify if the documents submitted are accurate.

If the secretary of state has “reasonable cause to believe” that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements, then the candidate’s name would be withheld from the ballot.

Even if the bill passes, Sinema said there would be problems enforcing it.

“The secretary of state has no jurisdiction over federal law or over the federal government,” she said.

So, assuming that this is all about Obama, let’s say this law passes. Then in 2012, when he runs for re-election, he will provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the very same document that he posted on-line over a year ago. The one certified by the state of Hawaii stating that he was born in Honolulu.

Based on the U.S. constitution, the Arizona Secretary of State would HAVE to accept this document. No ifs, ands or buts.

One of the papers Newly Elected Brown will have to produce , his birth certificate, not a certificate of live birth. I had to produce mine to join the service. Prsidents take the same oath and should be held acountable the same as all of us.

Obama has a bigger problem with Natural Born Citizen. Obama’s father has a Kenya and British flag on his back, his mother had an American flag on her back, that means Obama has a American flag, a British flag, and a Kenyan flag on his back at birth. That means he has TRIPLE allegiance and that was exactly what the framers and signers of the constitution did NOT want when they wrote “Natural Born Citizen”. Think about it, his allegiance is split between 3 countries!!!

Any document Obama submits will have to be verified (and not by fact check.org). And definitely no document posted on the internet will do. The Secretary of State would be able to gain access to Obama’s long form birth certificate if he submitted the short form. The long form is the ONLY document that proves anything hence why half the country wants to see it.

I hope the AZ legislature passes this bill. It’s a travesty that we’re in a situation where so many well-meaning Americans doubt the legitimacy, be it a legitimate concern or not, of our president’s claim to be a US citizen. How in the world could we have allowed this to happen? Pass the bill. Require a long form birth certificate of everyone wishing to be placed on the ballot in Arizona going forward.

Fraud says that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was British/Kenyan. As is clear from a review of historical laws, EVERY SINGLE colony/new state at the time the Constitution was founded had adopted laws providing that a person born within the colony/state was a natural born citizen – regardless of who their parents were. As recently as 1972, The US Supreme Court expressly recognized that US law adopts “jus soli” (citizenship by place of birth) — rather than the “jus sanguinis” (citizenship by parents) that Fraud argues applies. Fraud is simply wrong.

Any law that would require any candidate to produce a long form birth certificate would be held unconstitutional as applied to a person born in a state for which the US State Department accepts COLBs. It would also be held unconstitutional as applied to a person born in a state whose state records were destroyed through some natural disaster or similar situation.

If the AZ legislature passes this bill, it will have passed a law that will cost AZ taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees – only to be deemed invalid and unconstitutional. Whatta waste.

*And Mike L, Hawaii doesn’t have a “long form birth certificate.” It has a birth certificate, and Obama’s was released to the public a long time ago.

LIE. Hawaii does have birth certificates – obama said himself he had his birth certificate in his possession. He never released his birth certificate to anyone.

**The Secretary of State woud HAVE to accept that very same document that Obama posted on-line over a year ago, so what is the point of this law?

Wrong again. The law says birth certificate – what was posted on-line is not a birth certificate. And if Obama were to submit it to the Secretary of State it would have to be a hard copy – which he doesn’t have. What’s on-line is nothing more than a digital image.

***So, assuming that this is all about Obama, let’s say this law passes. Then in 2012, when he runs for re-election, he will provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the very same document that he posted on-line over a year ago. The one certified by the state of Hawaii stating that he was born in Honolulu.

Why do you assume it’s about Obama?

And wrong again. What is on-line has not been vouched for by the State of Hawaii in any fashion. It has never been mentioned by Dr Fukino and it certainly was never “certified”.

The comments here prove how little people know about the situation. Still. What’s funny is the anger. If as you say Obama meets the criteria, why would you care if the bill is passed or not? Why do the Arizona Democrats care?

Actually, you are all a little off. The document posted online by Obama isn’t proof of a Hawaiian birth, it is what’s called a certificate of live birth, which anyone can get, even people born outside the US. That is the problem, if Joe Smith was born in Costa Rica, he could record his birth in Hawaii and obtain what Obama posted, a certificate of live birth, it is not a birth certificate in any legal sense, just proof of identity. It can not be used to prove place of birth, just age.

And who spends nearly $2 million in legal defense fees to avoid showing a $12 piece of paper? And there are now quite a few states doing this too, just show the stupid long form, what the hell.